Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

__________________
Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagor

Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.

That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.

Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

Yes but these things are not always decided by a set of objective criteria, remember people were already claiming (rightly or wrongly) Fed is the greatest ever back in 2006 because they were so impressed by his level of play from 2004-2006 period.

He put Hoad at #1 solely for his peak play and also put McEnroe ahead of Nadal and Borg ahead of Sampras even though stats would dictate otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

Well IMO a GOAT list that doesn't include Sampras is not inclusive enough.

That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.

Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Subjectively you don't see the tremendous level of difference between Federer and Sampras on clay?

I find a lot of difference.

__________________
There is an artist in Roger Federer who expresses himself best at the Tennis court

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Subjectively, some people think there is a lot between Federer and Sampras, but in my opinion, this second opinion is as useless as yours.

I don't know how anyone can construct anything (arguments included) based off of unfalsifiable opinions.

__________________
Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.

I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see examples of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.

__________________
Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.

I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see example of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.

I understand. Thanks for explaining.

Like I've said before I always hope that the current champion can be the best ever because that would mean we are seeing the highest quality of play. Unfortunately it's often not the case.

Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great.

Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.

Anyway while Chang and Goran weren't all time greats and while Lendl wasn't what he was I was just using them as examples of some of the tough competition Sampras faced.

Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great..

Chang wasn't feared by the best if they were in decent form and no he certainly wasn't capable of beating anyone at their best, he was a lesser version of Hewitt who wouldn't sniff #1 if he was the same generation as Fed (Roger doesn't go on walkabout when CC season arrives), the guy's vastly overrated in comparison to players like Roddick and Hewitt (courtesy of being a player in Sampras era instead of Fed's, I'm sure he'd be called another weak era clown if he were Fed's punching bag instead of Pete's).

Goran was a dangerous opponent and a terrific grasscourter at his best but was also a huge headcase who could implode at any given moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1

Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.

Winning % and number of titles matter little when it comes to slam performances, as I said for me it was the same as Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, a solid win but nothing special.